Well, let’s talk about homeopathy from the scientific view.
We know homeopathic treatments are not valid medicine, because there have been many trials that have investigated their efficacy as such. The overwhelming trend in the results is that they are no more effective than placebos. Homeopathy has been around for over 200 years. It has had had more than enough time to prove the medical claims that surround it, which it hasn’t done. The only rational conclusion is that it has no basis in medical science; no curative properties whatsoever.
That said:
One interesting thing that I think isn’t given much thought is the power of the placebo effect. Typically, it is thought of only as a means of ruling out which proposed treatments are biologically effective and which are not–that is, whether the treatment has a measurable effect on your physical condition (i.e. proven medicine) or whether it produces a sense of well-being without improving your physical condition (i.e. placebo). With a little imagination, the placebo effect can be repurposed as a tool to manipulate a patient’s (or even one’s own) sense of well-being to make the recovery process more bearable.
Therein lies the oft-overlooked utility of all kinds of B.S. ranging from homeopathy to crystals to tea leaves or whatever. Their effects are often dismissed because they occur entirely in the mind. I would argue that effects that occur in the mind are useful and usable. If you’re a cancer patient undergoing treatment that makes you feel constantly sick and tired, wouldn’t you jump at the chance to take a sugar pill, rub a crystal, burn incense–to do anything–if it gave you the feeling of improved well-being?
“The effect is in your mind” is a reasonable statement. “The effect is merely in your mind” shows the inward creep of unscientific bias. The former dismisses the ability of something to affect anything outside of your mind. The latter dismisses the importance of anything that affects your mind exclusively. In my experience, a lot of people pay lip service to the mind’s role in their sense of well-being while simultaneously showcasing hints of this bias.
There are multiple issues with this approach. One is that anybody can do it for themselves, without special training or resources. I’m sure we’ve all seen the episode of The Office when Dwight psyches himself up by listening to Motley Crue. Motley Crue is Dwight’s placebo. The effect is to boost his capability as a salesman. Is it irrational of him to draw a link between Motley Crue and his ability to make a sale? I don’t think so. I think he rationally understands that he is deliberately holding an irrational belief in order to access the desirable effects that holding that belief can have for him.
So homeopaths, horoscope writers, and purveyors of crystals have no special service to offer, at least, not one worth paying for. This leads to the second problem:** these people typically make special claims to justify their own existence, then charge people for their services on the basis of those claims.** For example, homeopaths might claim that their treatments can do the same stuff that science-based medicine does. Whether they themselves are aware of it or not (I’m sure many homeopaths believe wholeheartedly in what they do), they are perpetrating a scam. They are selling you something that doesn’t do what they say it does.
If you can cook up an inert pill or rub a lamp in your house to make yourself feel better when you’re sick, or more confident on a date, or smarter when you’re having a conversation with your professor… why not do it? It is essentially a mental exercise in the form of a ritual behavior. Nothing special, exotic, paranormal, or supernatural about it. If it works, it works. Just don’t let anybody tell you that it’s something that only they can do for you, or that you have to pay for it.
The only reason I’m nattering on about this is that I want to disentangle a few issues that regularly get confused: alternative “medicine”, con artistry, and the mind’s effect on one’s sense of wellness. The first two are part and parcel of any discussion about pseudoscience. The third is, I think, woefully misunderstood.